Thank You For Smoking

Review: So good it just might make you feel like lighting up in the theater.

First things first: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Cliché? Sure, but in this case it's the truth. Honest. There's no question about it, young Jason Reitman is way funnier than his pops. And that's no easy feat, since the father in question is none other than Ivan (Stripes, Ghostbusters, Twins) Reitman. While Reitman senior carved a name for himself directing smart, yet goofy, and over-the-top comedies, young Reitman has gone straight for the jugular (and the belly) with his debut feature length film.Based on the novel by Christopher Buckley, TYFS follows the exploits of Nick Naylor (a whip-smart performance by Aaron Eckhart), a charismatic lobbyist for Big Tobacco. Suffice it to say, Naylor has a PhD in Spin, the type of gent who is a master debater of the highest degree. Given his talents and the nature of his employers, he's a very much loathed man. The film veers off into various subplots ranging from an ongoing battle of wits with a Vermont Senator (William H. Macy), how to get actors to re-glamorize smoking in the movies, and the fine art of balancing a cutthroat (and downright sleazy) career with being an estranged father.While the subplot of how Naylor relates to his son Joey (played with doe eyed cynicism by Cameron Bright) could very easily have caused the film to fall into an About A Boy Who Likes To Smoke-styled riff, it eschews any sense of over-emotional heart-string pulling in favor of staying crisp and somewhat snide.

The same can be said of the comedic flair that wafts through the film. While not as slapstick as some of his father's endeavors (either as director or producer), Jason Reitman's film is never shy on rib tickling solicitations. The humor is broad at times, all the better to hit a larger audience, but Reitman also keeps a firm grip on the sly, understated snark. There are plenty of wonderfully restrained visual elements of satire floating around the film that it's safe to say you'll miss a good portion of them the first time around (yes, I'm saying this is a movie worthy of a repeat watching). While the absurdity of Big Tobacco having their own research facilities to disprove the health ramifications of their product is the obvious subject matter here, Reitman doesn't spare any jabs at Hollywood, U.S. education, or alcohol and gun activist lobbies. Certainly the source material and Reitman's take on it have a lot to do with the success of the film, but none of it would fly without a top-notch cast. Eckhart, who burst onto the cinematic scene with In The Company Of Men back in 1997 has been languishing as a supporting player and sometime lead in big budget stinkers. One has to wonder why, 'cause the man can act up a serious storm. Thankfully this film should open up a lot of eyes to the man's deft handling of comedy and perhaps afford him some more challenging roles, not to mention the luxury of having folks know that he can carry a picture. His voiceover readings alone are priceless, but it's his onscreen presence that really shines.Eckhart isn't the only player in the film, though. Maria Bello and David Koechner deliver wonderfully tilted performances as Naylor's fellow blighted lobbyists (alcohol and guns, respectively). The venerable Robert Duvall turns in a bravo turn as The Captain, a right old Southern gent who loves his mint juleps as much as he loves his tobacco. Then there's the gruff J.K. Simmons as Naylor's boss BR and the equally gruff Sam Elliott as the fabled "Marlboro Man." Katie Holmes finally breaks out of her lackluster, mopey hot chick mode to shine as a lascivious reporter who will use all of her ass-sets to get what she wants. And turns from Adam Brody and Rob Lowe poke deserved fun at the often slick and vapid nature of the celebrity (in this case Hollywood) machine. Thank You For Smoking comes out the gates with blazing gunfire, taking a huge cue from the classic Westerns and vintage Hong Kong action films of yore in that it never bothers to pause and reload. Instead it just keeps shooting and shooting and shooting and shooting, praying that the audience is quick-witted enough to match the pace. And if you can't, there's really no need to fret as you can always see it a second or third time. But you want to know the real absurdity of the whole film? While it clearly mocks the enterprise of Big Tobacco and is in many ways an anti-smoking film, it has such a strange and strong pull that you may just find yourself hankering for a cancer stick the moment you leave the theater. How ironic is that?